Case 3205205/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Szubryt v Nastassia Maritzova and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205205/2022
- Decision date
- 13 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms K Szubryt
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing proceeded in the respondents' absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal also added Footnote Limited as a second respondent under rule 34 on the basis of the Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge Gordon Walker sat alone on 13 March 2023 at East London Hearing Centre.
The only substantive claim was for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found the claim well founded because the respondents admitted that they had not paid the claimant one month's wages. The respondents relied on an employee handbook to justify deductions, but the tribunal recorded that the claimant had not been provided with the handbook, as required by section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The amount payable by the respondents to the claimant was assessed at £2,416.66 gross. The tribunal said that figure was calculated by reference to an annual salary of £29,000 gross, which the claimant had evidenced at the hearing. No separate split of the award was recorded beyond that amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondents admitted they had not paid one month's wages. They sought to rely on an employee handbook to make deductions, but the claimant had not been provided with the handbook as required by section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,417 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,417
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.